20 cards sideboard, not a bad idea?

[SpikeyMikey]

In other news, I really can't see a swap making transformational sideboards that much more viable. The real problem isn't that you can't swap between two decks with 20 cards, but rather that the two decks would still be very similar and likely lose to the same decks.

This.

Thinking back through my history with the game, I can only think of one deck that really pulled the transformational sideboard off well, and that was Goblin Trenches during Invasions era Standard. It went from a slow control deck preboard to an aggressive midrange deck postboard. But that's because the burn spells it used as removal G1 were great reach G2 and it just happened to be in aggressive colors. Furthermore, there were no strategies that it couldn't answer as one of those two decks.

You could do something similar in Legacy, but even with 20 cards, most decks aren't well suited enough to transform and of the ones that could, most of them would still not have room for hate for decks like Enchantress or Dredge.

I do believe that a 20 card sideboard would change the game significantly. That's because there are two basic schools of deck strategy (to my mind). There is the ideal line school and the flexible goodstuff school.

An ideal line deck is one that wants to do the same thing every game. Generally, these decks are combo decks. They will often play a minimum number of interactive cards to keep an opponent from screwing with their line. The other end of the spectrum for ideal line decks are decks like Stoneblade during the MM era. Every game, they want to land a Stoneforge Mystic and fetch Batterskull. They are unconcerned with what you're playing. If they can kill it, they will. If they can't kill it, they'll counter it.

A flexible goodstuff deck is 99% of the midrange decks out there. I'm going to tailor my gameplan based on what I see out of you. Whether I Green Sun's Zenith for Tarmogoyf or Gaddock Teeg depends entirely on what I think you're trying to do. When you're playing Rock, you don't walk into the game with a plan that you're following, you just use whatever resources you have to stymie your opponent's plan.

Ideal line decks generally have far less "flex" spots in the main than goodstuff decks, meaning that they have less room to bring in board hate. Zoo may be able to bring in 8 pieces of hate against Dredge if they desire; Dredge can't bring in 8 pieces against anything. There just isn't room.

Increasing the space in the sideboard would shift the balance in the metagame in favor of flexible goodstuff decks. Right now, I don't think that midrange decks really need a boost, they already comprise a very strong strategy.

[Namida]

Well, let's be clear here. I'm pretty sure that none of us actually think that 20 card sideboards are actually going to happen. It's not. What we are discussing here is the theoretical impact of creating such a scenario, and whether or not that would create a better game.

Obviously, the subject matter is quite subjective and mostly useless. But this is a forum for a game, so its not 'Serious Business' all the time. If you don't want to read the thread, don't.

In other news, I really can't see a swap making transformational sideboards that much more viable. The real problem isn't that you can't swap between two decks with 20 cards, but rather that the two decks would still be very similar and likely lose to the same decks. Sure, combo decks might sidestep some hate, but then they might lose to aggro with a bunch of hate. I suppose I'm just a little bit skeptical that 5 cards is the magic number that turns the transform strategy from mediocre at best into the end-all-be-all.

I suppose my comments were a bit incendiary. It *is* an interesting exercise, and I agree that five cards wouldn't just let me basically play two different decks at a tournament. What irked me was the posts that I see on why this idea would be implemented, because that reason is to ever-so-slightly decrease format diversity by giving every deck just a few more spots to work with, and the justification for that is a belief that metagaming is a perfect science, with the implication that someone playing a deck outside of a metagamer's expectations is some sort of crime against humanity that people just do not deserve to lose to.

Basically, I'm already sort of surprised that players feel comfortable enough to try to predict metagames at any Legacy event given the sheer number of available cards, and my mind is just blown that what's available is perceived by anyone to be somehow not enough. I suppose I'm trying to ask if there would be a good reason to increase the size of the sideboard without the reason having anything to do with the idea that Legacy's card pool is massive.

[BKclassic]

Expanding the sideboard is an interesting idea, but 20 cards would definitely be too many. In all seriousness though, expanding the sideboard would probably just make blue decks even better.

[Nessaja]

and the justification for that is a belief that metagaming is a perfect science, with the implication that someone playing a deck outside of a metagamer's expectations is some sort of crime against humanity that people just do not deserve to lose to.

You entirely misread. And that's actually mostly because you read what you want to read instead of what is actually there.

The problem is not that you lose against a matchup that you didn't expect. This will not change with a bigger sideboard because something unexpected is independent on sideboard size.
The problem is that the amount of sideboard cards is not proportional to the size of the metagame in legacy. In my opinion. And I believe that if it were, a bit of the luck element that is in tournaments due to sideboard choices you have to make (do I pick matchup X or matchup Y with my last sideboard card) is lessened.

[Namida]

I apologize if I was getting off track with my other comments. This is the comment I was addressing:

My problem is that you can make a perfect - spot on metacall with the right deck and still lose badly due to the open nature of legacy. In an environment where skill should be rewarded I'd say it's a good thing that randomness is minimized.

At a five hundred man tournament in a format with a 15,000+ deep card pool, I think the concept of a spot on metacall is bullshit, and that's the basis for which you're making your claims. You imply to me that you don't think that it's acceptable to lose to a deck that you could never expect seeing, but I think it's ridiculous that you could be complaining given that it's almost absurd to me that a player can make a metacall of any sort when the number of deck possibilities is so high.

My point was more that what you are saying is that you want to change the rules of the game because they don't fit your idea of how much luck should be in the game. The concept of the metagame being "too large" is not something I think should affect the rules of the game, and in my opinion, it's having to make tough choices in deck construction that makes this game Magic: The Gathering, and not something more concrete like Chess.

In fact, I would contend to you that the nature of Legacy is such that adding more sideboard slots could decrease the skill required to participate, because you're making room for sideboard cards that are more powerful yet too narrow to to be generally used now. Decks like Dredge could be completely unusable as a "spot-on metacall" because no one would ever have the tough choice of putting strong graveyard hate into their sideboards or having strong post-board games against other decks, etc.

[edgarps22]

Actually at 20 cards you could switch between Team America and some form of TPS or Past in Flames combo relatively easily, it's actually pretty close to viable at 15 cards ... just saying. Any more and getting odd switches like this get scary real fast.

[Nessaja]

You imply to me that you don't think that it's acceptable to lose to a deck that you could never expect seeing,

No that's your conclusion.

I imply that it's stupid to lose to a deck you expect but can't prepare for due to sideboarding retrains.

Use logic, how would an increased sideboard help agaisnt decks you don't expect? It's not that hard to comprehend.

by point was more that what you are saying is that you want to change the rules of the game because they don't fit your idea of how much luck should be in the game.

I've given a suggestion on a rule game change (which I don't expect to happen) because the rules are based on metagames much smaller than legacy.

The concept of the metagame being "too large" is not something I think should affect the rules of the game, and in my opinion, it's having to make tough choices in deck construction that makes this game Magic: The Gathering, and not something more concrete like Chess.

And I don't like playing the slot machines. I guess your preference is an argument but it's not any more of an argument than my preference.

In fact, I would contend to you that the nature of Legacy is such that adding more sideboard slots could decrease the skill required to participate, because you're making room for sideboard cards that are more powerful yet too narrow to to be generally used now.

Perhaps. But only when Dredge is an expected deck.

But I don't see how that decreases the skill. Right now the Dredge matchup is:

1. Are you playing combo, if no, go to 2
2. Are you playing enough sideboard hate, if no, go to 3
3. You lose

(A comical simplified model to bring a point across, yes, the real situation is more complicated but I'm sure everyone that plays and played against dredge recognizes the above).

Either way, there's no skill in the above. Just rock paper siccors.

But you know what, I agree. There's a lot of overpowered hate that has been printed because sideboards are so small. Like Perish, Null Rod and perhaps Leyline of the Void and Mindbreak Trap. These cards also remove the skill out of the game because the game becomes do you have card X? Yes? Then you win. No? Then you lose, gg. I wouldn't mind seeing some of those banned as well.

[Tacosnape]

Sounds like a cop-out for mediocre players.

This.

I'll use GW Maverick as an example, because right now it's a very solid choice that A. Isn't the "Best Deck" and B. has a lot of problems to shore up with a small sideboard. Solution? Maindeck better.

If you don't have enough sideboard space, built a better maindeck. Know what gives you a fighting chance against Dredge maindeck, for example? Maindecking three copies of the best Green creature in Legacy - Scavenging Ooze. (Don't forget, he's also fantastic against Snapcaster Mage.)

Can't get past Storm Combo? Gotta do what you can. I added Lightning Greaves to my Stoneforge equipment package to up the shot that my disruptors don't get bounced. I have eight 1CC ramps (Noble, GSZ) to max my chances of a turn two Teeg in game one (GSZ for 2, drawing it naturally) and I've got a second Teeg and some Ethersworn Canonists in sideboard. Not a great fight, but it might get there.

Show and Tell decks everywhere? I've got four Knights and a Karakas maindecked. Felt a little light, so I added a copy of Phyrexian Metamorph to the maindeck. And I might add a second one.

Changing the Sideboard rules of magic is a concept designed for people who can't figure out the necessary means to thrive in the current scenario. Once things settled down at any given number of sideboard cards, be it 15, 10, 20, or whatever, these same people still won't be winning. The ones who adapt better to the 15 will also learn to adapt better to the 20.

[Nessaja]

This.

Solution? Maindeck better.

Bullshit.

I got a mainboard with 10 tutors mainboard in mono green and a sideboard of mostly 1-offs to prepare for as much decks as possible, this is by far not the strongest maindeck, but done this way to allow the deck to prepare for as much decks as humanly possible. But I still feel like I can't prepare for every deck I want to prepare for because the meta is that broad.

You're taking the easy way out by saying "bigger sideboards is for the skill-less noobs", it's a non argument. Besides, you make the argument personal while this proposition is not a personal thing but with the intention to remove a little bit of the luck factor out big tournaments.

This is not about personal skill.
This is not about not winning.
This is not a whine.

Don't make it personal when it isn't.

[Namida]

No that's your conclusion.

I imply that it's stupid to lose to a deck you expect but can't prepare for due to sideboarding retrains.

Use logic, how would an increased sideboard help agaisnt decks you don't expect? It's not that hard to comprehend.

I'm saying I believe that if you can't do anything about what you expect to see between the 75 cards in your main and sideboard, A) You made a bad metacall and the idea behind this exercise is based on you not being perfect or B) Despite what you say, your idea of metagaming doesn't make sense because you can't make a spot on metacall given the rules of the game Magic: The Gathering, and not Magic: The Gathering Legacy Edition like you're proposing.

And increased sideboard can help against decks you don't expect because you will literally have more cards that have the potential to be sided in for damage control. Playing DDFT, I've lost games to Leyline of the Void after Dredge won a SCG event. If the five more cards could mean that anyone who had to decide between having a bunch of good cards and having strong graveyard hate now has the power to do both, I'm against it--even if it means that a good player can still consistently end up at the top tables, if only a little less frequently.

I've given a suggestion on a rule game change (which I don't expect to happen) because the rules are based on metagames much smaller than legacy.

And I don't like playing the slot machines. I guess your preference is an argument but it's not any more of an argument than my preference.

And...are you comparing Legacy to slot machines?

I agree that it's a matter of preference, but I think it's foolish to suggest to warp the rules of the game to match your preferences.

The upside to this change, in your opinion, is decreased randomness. I wouldn't necessarily call this a good thing, and I honestly wouldn't have started playing Legacy without the chance to mise out wins against better players. I ask you, what do you personally think the potential downsides of such a change would be?

Perhaps. But only when Dredge is an expected deck.

But I don't see how that decreases the skill. Right now the Dredge matchup is:

1. Are you playing combo, if no, go to 2
2. Are you playing enough sideboard hate, if no, go to 3
3. You lose

(A comical simplified model to bring a point across, yes, the real situation is more complicated but I'm sure everyone that plays and played against dredge recognizes the above).

Either way, there's no skill in the above. Just rock paper siccors.

So, would you be comfortable saying that we should eliminate Dredge from the metagame for the sake of decreasing randomness and dodging the landmines that are decks like Dredge, Belcher, and SI? It's a bit of a digression, because I'm curious (My first Legacy deck was SI, so I'm serious about that "mising wins against better players" thing).

But you know what, I agree. There's a lot of overpowered hate that has been printed because sideboards are so small. Like Perish, Null Rod and perhaps Leyline of the Void and Mindbreak Trap. These cards also remove the skill out of the game because the game becomes do you have card X? Yes? Then you win. No? Then you lose, gg. I wouldn't mind seeing some of those banned as well.

Why do you want to play Legacy when Standard basically has all of the changes you desire inherently built into it? Without knowing anything about you, my first guess would be that anyone who wants to play Legacy chooses it over other formats due to the nature of how "wide open" it is. If it has anything to do with the card pool, then why do you feel that it could be correct to deny other people the right to utilize the card pool and how deep that card pool is?

Bullshit.

I got a mainboard with 10 tutors mainboard in mono green and a sideboard of mostly 1-offs to prepare for as much decks as possible, this is by far not the strongest maindeck, but done this way to allow the deck to prepare for as much decks as humanly possible. But I still feel like I can't prepare for every deck I want to prepare for because the meta is that broad.

You're taking the easy way out by saying "bigger sideboards is for the skill-less noobs", it's a non argument. Besides, you make the argument personal while this proposition is not a personal thing but with the intention to remove a little bit of the luck factor out big tournaments.

This is not about personal skill.
This is not about not winning.
This is not a whine.

Don't make it personal when it isn't.

I can understand that this is what you believe, but I'm afraid that I think that you're whining about how your deck can't beat everything. I'm not trying to make any personal attacks against you, but my thought here is that you seem to be thinking that you deserve to be able to prepare your deck to beat anything, when this is never actually the case--nor do I think it should be, because I do not believe that the format is meant to reward skill to the extent that you believe. Perhaps it's because we're not being specific enough that you're coming off this way. Can you provide an example? Like, what meta were you expecting, and what did you do to prepare for it? How were your preparations not adequate, and why were you unable to adequately prepare for it?

[TsumiBand]

Random game is random, everyone. We play (60 + 15) cards that are randomly shuffled into a deck and sometimes those cards dick us.

I played a game against 45land.dec where we went to game 3 and I won the third game, because the Lands player NEVER DREW ANOTHER LAND AFTER THE FIRST. Weird shit happens. The size of your sideboard isn't going to play into that kind of fuckedupedness.

At some point you do have to say pretty much what Safety said - this isn't Chess. Our game pieces are not necessarily evenly matched against every person we play against.

Having acknowledged all that, I believe that increasing the size of the sideboard increases the amount of random variance we strive to minimize, simply by altering the equation from being "MY 60 + 15 vs. YOUR 60 + 15" to being "MY 60 + (15 + N) vs YOUR 60 + (15 + N)". I'm not even talking about transformational sideboards here. You have to bring in N cards to fight N cards, whether they're in the maindeck or not doesn't really matter.

[Nessaja]

r B) Despite what you say, your idea of metagaming doesn't make sense because you can't make a spot on metacall

Sure you can.

If the metagame consists of 9 decks that each represent 10% and 1 deck that represents 5% of the field and many randoms. If you can only prepare for 9 decks with maindeck and sideboard you need to drop the 10% of the decks. If you face the 5% matchup is not based on skill, it's based on luck.
You might still face many of the random decks which you couldn't prepare for, that's all fine and not something that would change with a larger SB.

And...are you comparing Legacy to slot machines?

And you were comparing legacy to chess. It just shows that you made a rediculous argument.

I agree that it's a matter of preference, but I think it's foolish to suggest to warp the rules of the game to match your preferences.

Any suggestion by anyone can warp the rules of the game to match preferences. When you play a game you have preferences. Damn you're smart!
If you read the first post, all of this came from the idea that it could potentially change Legacy for the better. That's my hypothesis, that's why I propose it. You disagree but you only keep nagging about personal reasons while this isn't about personal reasons. Get it straight already.

The upside to this change, in your opinion, is decreased randomness. I wouldn't necessarily call this a good thing, and I honestly wouldn't have started playing Legacy without the chance to mise out wins against better players.

And we disagree. I like it when skill has a high reward and I think it's ultimately better for a competitive game when skill is the deciding factor. Many ESports and Sports follow the same pattern.
I get that you like lucky wins. I get it. No need to repeat it, I get it.

So, would you be comfortable saying that we should eliminate Dredge from the metagame for the sake of decreasing randomness and dodging the landmines that are decks like Dredge, Belcher, and SI?

No. If you read my posts at all, you would know this.
And I don't think that the proposed change would do any of the above.

If it has anything to do with the card pool, then why do you feel that it could be correct to deny other people the right to utilize the card pool and how deep that card pool is?

Your question insinuates that the diversity of the metagame lessens. I don't agree with that conclusion. And additionally, I don't think you - or me - or anyone here is in any position to predict a metagame or metagame diversity when changes as big as this are implemented.

So basically, your question is baseless.

I can understand that this is what you believe, but I'm afraid that I think that you're whining about how your deck can't beat everything.

gfg are you serious?

Stop making this about me.

Like, what meta were you expecting, and what did you do to prepare for it? How were your preparations not adequate, and why were you unable to adequately prepare for it?

Here again you assume that an event happened where I misjudged the metagame.

Newsflash, nothing of that sort happened, I just acknowledge that the possibility exsists. Stop making assumptions about me, stop making this about me. If you can't then just don't reply at all.

[Grollub]

And we disagree. I like it when skill has a high reward and I think it's ultimately better for a competitive game when skill is the deciding factor. Many ESports and Sports follow the same pattern.
I get that you like lucky wins. I get it. No need to repeat it, I get it.

Preparing a new strategy which nobody expects (and in regards to MtG, have no answer for in main nor board) and/or picking an unexpected deck is a skill. We see a similar pattern in ESports and Sports too.

Dismissing innovation and/or insight as "luck" is in my opinion just plain silly.

[Nessaja]

Preparing a new strategy which nobody expects (and in regards to MtG, have no answer for in main nor board) and/or picking an unexpected deck is a skill. We see a similar pattern in ESports and Sports too.

Dismissing innovation and/or insight as "luck" is in my opinion just plain silly.

I don't disagree and I'm not claiming otherwise. Read.

[Grollub]

I did, and I cannot see the consistency in your argument. On one hand being underprepared to the unexpected is a problem, on the other hand it is not.

Nevermind the fact you could argue that a larger sideboard would allow decks to completely and utterly smash other decks by making the amount of hate versus said deck even larger, and thus increasing the value of luck. If you to make the game less reliant on luck, you should remove the sideboard entirely so we would end up playing solitaire versus each and other.

[HokusSchmokus]

But I don't see how that decreases the skill. Right now the Dredge matchup is:

1. Are you playing combo, if no, go to 2
2. Are you playing enough sideboard hate, if no, go to 3
3. You lose

The main problem with playing hate against dredge is that most people I played so far in my whole magic career cannot use their hate right. Same with many Solutions against many different decks. If you cannot play your hate, you will lose, no matter how much cards you have in your SB. Also , those people like to complain if they draw 2 out of 4 pieces of hate AND a perfect hand.
And there are some decks that indeed improve their bad matchups MD while making the deck better against everything else too.


Also, you CAN build the perfect Sideboard against every deck with 15 cards. Well , not the perfect but still pretty good. You CAN have outs to every Strategy you can think of Maindeck or Sideboard.Of course not always the optimal cards, but cards that are useful and replace dead cards.

[Nessaja]

I did, and I cannot see the consistency in your argument. On one hand being underprepared to the unexpected is a problem, on the other hand it is not.

Please point out to me where I argue that being underprepared against the unexpected is a problem at all. Use direct quotations and don't take things out of context.

Nevermind the fact you could argue that a larger sideboard would allow decks to completely and utterly smash other decks by making the amount of hate versus said deck even larger, and thus increasing the value of luck. .

I acknowledge that there's a choice between having very strong matchups against a couple of decks and having a broad spectrum of good matchups. Nothing new, same with 15 card sideboards. If you think you can make that kind of meta call in legacy, power to you.

If you cannot play your hate, you will lose, no matter how much cards you have in your SB.

That's stating the obvious. And also obviously beyond the point I was making.

Could we, for a minute, assume that hate is used correctly, players are equal skill and no playmistakes are made?

Yes, there are a lot of factors you could take into account when you want to represent the real world. But the amount of factors that you'd need to include make it impossible to say anything sane about the implications of such a change.

[Grollub]

Please point out to me where I argue that being underprepared against the unexpected is a problem at all. Use direct quotations and don't take things out of context.

The problem is not that you lose against a matchup that you didn't expect. This will not change with a bigger sideboard because something unexpected is independent on sideboard size.
The problem is that the amount of sideboard cards is not proportional to the size of the metagame in legacy. In my opinion. And I believe that if it were, a bit of the luck element that is in tournaments due to sideboard choices you have to make (do I pick matchup X or matchup Y with my last sideboard card) is lessened.
I acknowledge that there's a choice between having very strong matchups against a couple of decks and having a broad spectrum of good matchups. Nothing new, same with 15 card sideboards. If you think you can make that kind of meta call in legacy, power to you.

If you do not board against a specific deck it's because:
a) You do not expect it.
b) You take a calculated risk, and thus not dependant on luck but rather insight in the metagame as it's something that happens prior to the game start.

I acknowledge that there's a choice between having very strong matchups against a couple of decks and having a broad spectrum of good matchups. Nothing new, same with 15 card sideboards. If you think you can make that kind of meta call in legacy, power to you.

If there's no difference between 15 and 20 card sideboards, why are we having this discussion? :-P
Increasing the sideboard, would most likely also mean that the metagame would be even harder to predict as it would be in constant flux:

week 1: Deck A is popular,
week 2: Deck B + the now hypothetical larger sideboard completely smashes Deck A as it can now pack an additional 5, Deck A specific, hate cards without weakening the other match ups,
week 3: Deck C does the similar to Deck B and so on and so forth.

The 15 card sideboard is already in my opinion on the verge of being too large.

[Nessaja]

If you do not board against a specific deck it's because:

What you quoted in no way implies that I claim that being underprepared against the unexpected is a problem. I EXPLICITLY say that it's not a problem in your quote.

If there's no difference between 15 and 20 card sideboards, why are we having this discussion? :-P

I haven't claimed that nothing changes. But some things don't change.

Increasing the sideboard, would most likely also mean that the metagame would be even harder to predict as it would be in constant flux:

I don't mean any disrespect when I say that you're (nor me) in no position to predict metagames, let alone metagame changes. I can also make an example where what you propose doesn't happen.

[Grollub]

What you quoted in no way implies that I claim that being underprepared against the unexpected is a problem. I EXPLICITLY say that it's not a problem in your quote.

The problem is that the amount of sideboard cards is not proportional to the size of the metagame in legacy.

If it's not proportional to the size of the metagame - which I agree with, and find a good thing, you have to prepare against what you expect, no?